I disagree. Paul is the one candidate truly against the War on Drugs. Check any stats you want and tell me that is not an unbelievably racist endeavor. Paul also wants to stop killing a bunch of brown people in Iraq, as well as American servicemen, whom I'm pretty sure are more likely to be minorities than the general population. He would also not send us into war, which always seem to be fought against countries which are not majority white Christians. Feel free to disagree, but I think those are two damn important points right there.
Well, I'd be shocked beyond words if murderers weren't disproportionately minorities. If you care, you can look up the stats to try to dispute it. I'm sure the site where you find all your stats on the racist aspect of the drug war will have them. If a pol wants to outlaw murder, does that make him, too, a racist? You haven't thought this through very carefully.
Apparently that point, which I have also tried to make, is not important. I really find it ridiculous that some people are pointing out RP as a racist when there is much dirtier dirt to be spread about other more prominent candidates. Good post.
Right, because drug use and murder is like the exact same thing. Not to mention that I'm pretty sure every politician is against murder, and that murder is a state issue and thus not relevant in a Presidential campaign. You may have noticed that no one in this race is talking about murder you see. Try again, you can do better.
I'm not talking about hurt feelings, I'm talking about job discrimination and discrimination that impedes people's livelihoods, which is much more damaging than not being served in a restaurant, which is still wrong. And I don't think Paul is a racist. In fact, I like Ron Paul, but I'm not going to vote for him.
Right. I think it's more likely that Paul is not "racist" (to the extent you can define that single word) than that he is racist. But he's unacceptably indifferent to racism. You missed the point. The point is that it's stupid and reductionist to think being for criminalizing of drugs is a product of racist beliefs. I used an absurd example to drive the point home. Now that I've spelled it out, do you understand?
I understand why you say that, but I disagree. I see. I don't think that because, for example, Mike Huckabee is for super Drug War or super Iraq War, that he hates black people. I don't think any of the candidates do. But while what is in their hearts is important, doesn't the actual effect of the polices people support matter too? And the Drug War is undeniably racist in the results. It's not a question. That doesn't being for it means you are a racist, just that the effect of that policy is disproportionately harmful to black people. And the candidate whom you think is supportive of policies which make him seem indifferent to racism, even if you don't think that he hates minorities, is the one who most wants to end a policy that hurts black people. And no, I don't think that's the primary motivation why Paul wants to end the Drug War, but you can't ignore that that will be one of the effects. And is not the end result what really matters? If it's not, why are we posting on a soccer message board, a sport in which the end result is all that matters.
Holding sacred the right of property and business owners to discriminate on the basis of race is, in fact, racist. I'm sorry to break this to you. Right, you're scared shitless of Al Sharpton. That's no reason to oppose civil rights for an entire race. Or maybe you're a lousy businessman with a meager intellect. Let's see if we can prove this in your next post. Learn to read, then pick up a ********ing history book. Now, see, you can oppose "forced busing" without being racist. One could prefer to raise the standards of inner city schools. Or one could say black children shouldn't have had to deal with racist white slimeballs who think a tiny percentage of students somehow infect their racial purity. Or you could be this guy: However, once again. You cannot oppose the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, etc., without being a racist. If you've read enough to form an opinion on this, and still believe we'd be better off without them, there's no excuse for you. Back atcha, bitch. And happy new year. Well, there's no cure for being a cowardly little wimp. Maybe you could ask the air marshal to hold your hand the next time you see a turban. I've read this a lot in the past couple of pages, so don't take this personally. Okay, do take it personally, but other people should take it personally, as well. Since you either too scared or too stupid to express yourself adequately, you leave unclear whether you believe lunch counters can ban customers based on race. I'm going to conclude that you do, since you could easily have said otherwise. "Yes, but waaah, government contracts go to people who aren't total shitheels, it's not FAIR." "Yes, but waaah, I have to hire people based on qualifications, it's not FAIR." "Yes, but waaah, my stupid kids no longer get spaces in college because minorities were barred across the board, it's not FAIR." You have the right to think whatever you want. You can't always act based on those opinions. Check the Supreme Court decision Boo v. ********ing Hoo. The end result of the Paul program would be the pre-Civil War South. And as opposed to baseball, where they give out style points. Burlew, I thought you were the only guy on here stupid and ill-informed enough to stick up for the right of businesses to discriminate based on race. This thread has shown me there's a bunch of other people like you out there, and I'm glad for the moment that people like you skulk about on message boards lying to yourself and others. Wasn't always like that. It's a better country now.
40 years ago might as well be ancient history. We have moved soooooo far from the mindset of the 1950's. Why is that so hard for most of you to comprehend? And no matter what you all believe, Ron Paul will not, nor desires to retun America to 1954 Alabama. In fact the fear in this thread is just plain silly.
Not really. It's actually the exact opposite of racist. It is individualist. Because it is impossible to be racist if you don't believe in race to begin with, entiendo? So what about opposing the Civil Rights Act due to disagreement with the existence of the EEOC
Provide a comprehensive list of what it is not ok to discriminate on the basis of, or kindly go away. Remind me, did Paul advocate repealing the 13th, 14th, or 15th Amendments? See, because those existed before the Civil War. And who passed the Fugitive Slave Act? Oh right, the feds. So you are asserting that Paul favored federal intervention on behalf of slave owners. Enjoy that limb you are all by yourself on. No genius, as opposed to boxing, gymnastics, ice skating, and a bunch of other sports. Yes, I believe people have the right to be stupid, whereas you believe that everyone should act like you do. Except you've proven your lack of intellect in this post and a bunch of others, whereas I don't pretend to have the answer for everyone. So even if I am dumb, I wouldn't want to impose my dumbness on everyone else.
Race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, age, Um, no they didn't. 13th--1865 14th--1868 15th--1870 Yes, in the pre-Civil War era, when the federal government was much weaker and less able to stand up to the slave states. No, he isn't. The world doesn't revolve around you. You may think that a business owner is just being "stupid" when he discriminates, but the customer is a citizen and has rights as well. It's not unreasonable for a democracy to extend the same rights and protections to each and every citizen, regardless of where in the country he or she lives. That's not about everyone "acting the same", no matter how much you try to trivialize the issue.
Really, huh? So the Catholic Church has to treat people the same regardless of sexual orientation, regardless that they think homosexuality is a sin? And a bunch of other examples I won't go in to. What makes that list definitive? Oops, I meant they didn't exist pre-Civil War. Which means JKWD asserted that Paul wants them repealed. Since you're defending him, please tell me where Paul has said he believes that. Irrelevant. The feds passed a law requiring slaves to be returned to their owners. Show me where Paul says he agrees with that, or disagree with JKWD's assertion. Ok, then find me one statement that supports his position then. Never claimed it did. The question is does a citizen have a "right" to patronize any business he wishes. Or alternatively, must a business allow anyone that wants to come through the door? Let's say that moron who donated to the Paul campaign comes through the door (and you know who it is when he comes by). Should you have to serve him? I would toss his ass out, on the basis of his beliefs. Is that ok? What if he says his beliefs are religious in nature? Then I'm discriminating based on religion. Is that ok? It's not that simple, now is it? So maybe Paul isn't so crazy after all.
You made a reference to white womanhood being threatened by desegregated public swimming pools. A bit vague. Anyway, let’s go a step further why does the government have public swimming pools in the first place? Busing: Busing in most American cities was a failure. It didn't create racial integration and was the final blow to several Northern industrial cities. What the interstate highway system and the birth of the suburbs hadn't already destroyed, forced busing did. Look at cities like: Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Camden, Buffalo, etc. Those public school systems are all gems and should be held as models for the rest of the country. Boston is a unique case. There was and still is, a large private school system run by the Church. Neighborhood schools and houses of worship were the cornerstones of communities in the urban America. The taking of a kid who lives five minutes by foot from his school and shipping him across town on a 45 minute bus ride to another school destroyed that. Why would I want to live near a school where my kid couldn't even go to because of some absurd judicial ruling? A better solution to the problem would've been improving the schools that were in minority neighborhoods through more investment and aid. Instead they spent money that could've improved the schools on busses. Amazing how smart government is sometimes. Well since you're the decider on what makes someone a racist why should I bother arguing with you? According to you I'm a racist and yet you seem to be completely in favor of laws that discriminate against white males. I could turn to you and say if you support racial quotas, affirmative action, and forced busing you're a "hardcore racist". It’s not racist though if it’s against the white man it’s creating "equality". How have we advanced in race relations as a society if the government has to take into account someone’s race as factor in whether they receive a government contract or not? Shouldn't we just give it to someone because they made the best offer regardless of their race? I don't believe anyone has brought up The Voting Rights Act. Do you understand Libertarian thought at all? The greater question is how far can the government go in telling me how to run my business? Should I be able to hire whoever I want and serve to whoever I want? I think so. I would be foolish to exclude people from my establishment because of their race or sex. It would hurt my business. However, why is anyone entitled to my services that I provide as a private citizen? Shouldn't it be up to me the business owner and employer who I hire and who I sell to? Now we have laws and rules that force me to hire people I may not want to because I need to have a "diverse" work force. There are numerous cases of people making sham agreements to take advantage of race and gender preferences afforded in government contracts. If I was a congressman I would've voted for it and supported it, even though it goes against my core philosophy. I am not a racist and I do not have to prove that to you or anyone else however, I recognize that there was an unequal distribution of public services funded by taxes and fees. Though, in principle, I think that the government is and should be limited in its ability to force my hand in how I run my business. There is a movement that wants to make English the national language and that we ban the creation of signs in Spanish or other languages, be it with tax dollars or by private business/property owners. This would be curtailing my freedom and ability to run my business as I see fit, as well as unconstitutional. As it stands, I would be foolish not to advertise in Spanish & English; regardless of what you think our national language(s) is or are it should be my choice because I own the establishment. If I live in a Russian neighborhood filled with Russian immigrants and I choose to use only Russian in my establishment, am I not discriminating against non-Russian speakers? Should the government come in and force me to change everything to include English because I am acting in a discriminatory way towards non-Russian speakers? Let's flip it around and where Ivana Don Speakasenglish is the owner. Nice guy. Immigrated here. Pays his taxes and votes because the ballots are printed in 20 different languages...one of them being Russian. Anyway... I want to be able to buy those dolls that have several smaller dolls inside them. However, I can't understand their ads because they're not in English, aren't my "rights" being violated? I go inside and try to speak with the owner & employees. They don't speak English, or if they do its very bad and I can't understand/communicate with them. The signs are all in Russian. I am seeking his goods and services and he is refusing to provide me adequate access to them. Aren't I entitle to what he is selling? Aren't my rights being violated? What about English radio stations? They are discriminatory to people who can't understand English. Aren't they violating the civil rights of Americans who do not have proficient use of the English language?
Separation of church and state, my friend. You know, that whole tax exempt thing? Religions don't fall under federal regulation. Do you have a non-religious example? Like the Boy Scouts wanting to keep gays out? Who said it was definitive? You asked him for a list, he gave it to you, and now you want to question his list. I would add handicap people to that list myself.
What about veteran status, national origin, union status, height, weight, eye color, hair, shoe size, dental condition, smell, handicap, language ability, the condition of their fingernails, political views, and taste in music? Oh and don't forget what if the person can't decided whether they're a man or a woman or somewhere inbetween...whats that called? Transgenderism or something.